[Crm-sig] Rights model
RSanderson at getty.edu
Wed Mar 1 04:07:08 EET 2017
Can I then transfer ownership of an E30 Right? No, as you transfer ownership of Physical Things (E18), not of Propositional (E89), Conceptual (E28), Man-Made (E71), Things (E70).
If Martin transferred copyright to a publisher … then Martin no longer possesses the instance of Copyrightness. Or more familiarly, ownership … the right of ownership is transferred by an Acquisition. One could argue that custody is a Right. The JPG Museum has legal custody of Irises, and could transfer that right to another Museum for an Exhibition.
As soon as the Right is an instance of some specific class of Right, rather than the holding of it, we seem to crash headlong into the rest of the model whereby activities transfer rights to objects and model the current state of those rights.
On the other hand, if E30 were the Period of holding of the Right, it would fit in nicely. The Acquisition transfers ownership of the object as always, and starts the period of ownership. The period of ownership is the holding of the right of ownership over the object… thereby completing our ternary relation of Right/Object/Actor. Which can’t be otherwise expressed, as it is not an Activity (no intentional action) and Period/Event do not have appropriate links to objects/actors. (P11 and P12 on Event are very weak compared to is_subject_to!)
If E30 were a subclass of E5 Event, and subject_to was sub property of P12i, and possesses P11i, these problems would go away :)
On 2/28/17, 12:22 PM, "Stephen Stead" <steads at paveprime.com> wrote:
I may be splitting hairs here but my reading of your example wordings are not quite what is meant.
So for your Martin example my wording would be "The particular instance of copyright, on this particular thing, that is held by Martin" so it is not the act of holding that is represented by the class but the thing that is held. I hope that makes it clearer.
The query pattern looks correct to me.
CC licenses would, to my understanding, be types of E30 Right and so E30-P2-E55 would be correct.
Tel +44 20 8668 3075
Mob +44 7802 755 013
E-mail steads at paveprime.com
LinkedIn Profile http://uk.linkedin.com/in/steads
From: Crm-sig [mailto:crm-sig-bounces at ics.forth.gr] On Behalf Of Robert Sanderson
Sent: 28 February 2017 19:50
To: crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
Cc: 'David Newbury' <david.newbury at gmail.com>
Subject: [Crm-sig] Rights model
Given the current model, I believe that E30 Right is an instance of the holding of a Right, rather than the concept of the Right itself? For example, E30 is not “Copyright” or “Apache 2.0” or “Ownership” … it is “The holding of copyright of an object by Martin”, “the use of Apache 2.0 for some code by Rob”, or “Ownership of a house by Emma”.
If this is not intended to be the case, can someone provide an example in RDF (your serialization preference is fine) that demonstrates two different people holding two different rights over the same object?
Given that … we are expected to then use P2_has_type to refer to the sort of Right, and thus queries should look for: ?object P104_is_subject_to ?right . ?right P2_has_type <actual_right> .
If so, how would one refer to the Creative Commons licenses? Still with P2?
Example of P104/P105/P75:
"rdfs:label": "Ownership Right by Owner of Object"
"rdfs:label": "Copyright by Holder of Object['s information object]"
Crm-sig mailing list
Crm-sig at ics.forth.gr
More information about the Crm-sig